OT: California Prison Academy: Better Than a Harvard Degree

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pri_dk]The public pension employees will get the full benefit, as required by law. Whose money will be used to make up the difference? (Hint: It’s not the sh!tcanned fund manager, who was probably chosen by a public employee in the first place.)

Now if someone in the private sector loses money in their 401K because their money was mismanaged, who is on the hook to make up the shortfall?

Keep trying, maybe you’ll get it eventually…[/quote]

Actually, pension fund managers are chosen by retirement boards, which are comprised by law of one active public safety employee, one active non-safety employee, two retired employees, two local business owners or local CEOs (or one of each) and one elected official (usually a county supervisor). There has to be a quorum and majority vote on any decision.

pri_dk, try not to come off sounding like a dk unless you know what you’re talking about ;=]

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]Are we comparing cubicle workers to prison guards?[/quote]
There are lots of cubicle workers that work for the state. Caltrans engineers, franchise tax board accountants, university system administrators, …

Ever been to downtown Sacramento? Lots of buildings, full of cubicles.

It would be very easy to make an apples-to-apples comparison between the majority of state worker’s jobs and those in the private sector.

[quote]The largest pension funds are obligated to pay out benefits according to contracts, but most of their funding is NOT from “taxpayers.” Employees pay a portion, employers pay a portion, but the majority comes from investment returns. If the investment returns end up being insufficient, they can always extract more from the employees.[/quote]
No, they cannot. That’s the fundamental problem. And you got it completely wrong.

Your first sentence above contradicts the last one. The pension funds do not have to extract from the employees because the contract specifically states how much employees must pay in. If the state goes back to the employee to make up the shortfall, it is a breach of contract, and the employee unions will be quick to point that out.

The crux of the problem is that there is NO contract between the taxpayer, the state, and the pension fund. There is nothing preventing the state from going back to the taxpayer. In fact, because the state is obligated BY LAW to pay the pensions, there is no alternative but to use taxpayer funds to make up the difference.

Here’s an example: http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/03/31/california-teacher-pension-fund-will-need-more-cash/

California Teacher Pension Shortfall Grows

The drop in value was enough to trigger an automatic increase in the amount the state must pay into the California State Teachers’ Retirement System […]

[quote]The notion that “taxpayers” are the ones paying for everything is pure B.S.[/quote]
You say that “Employees pay a portion, employers pay a portion.” Do you understand who the employer is? Do you understand where their funds come from? Do you understand the source of the employees payroll? It all comes from ONE source.

If it’s not the taxpayer, then what is the ultimate source of these funds?

[quote]People need to understand how the system works before they spout off about it.[/quote]

Yes, they do.[/quote]

I will find the report that shows public sector workers are much better educated and more experienced than the private sector employees they’re being compared to. They also have totally different jobs. Don’t have time at the moment, but will get back to you on this.

As far as your claim that “the money comes from one source,” as stated before, money out of my pocket is money out of my pocket. I’m a taxpayer, and my money is used to fund the outrageous pay of inept executives on a regular basis. So, essentially, all money is coming from “one source” — the taxpayers. I’m not even including all the tax credits and incentives used by those in the private sector. I don’t care if the entity that it’s going to is “public” or “private,” if it’s coming out of my pocket, it is always MY money.

If I’m overpaying someone in the private sector, it is no more acceptable than if I’m overpaying someone in the public sector. IMO, the benefits I receive from those in the public sector far outweigh the benefits I generally receive from those in the private sector.

The employees’ contribution comes from the employees’ pocket. Even what the “employer” contributes is compensation for the employees work (yes, they work, and all too often, they have much more difficult and stressful jobs — that provide a greater benefit to society — than what is found in the private sector).

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]Are we comparing cubicle workers to prison guards?[/quote]
There are lots of cubicle workers that work for the state. Caltrans engineers, franchise tax board accountants, university system administrators, …

Ever been to downtown Sacramento? Lots of buildings, full of cubicles.

It would be very easy to make an apples-to-apples comparison between the majority of state worker’s jobs and those in the private sector.

[quote]The largest pension funds are obligated to pay out benefits according to contracts, but most of their funding is NOT from “taxpayers.” Employees pay a portion, employers pay a portion, but the majority comes from investment returns. If the investment returns end up being insufficient, they can always extract more from the employees.[/quote]
No, they cannot. That’s the fundamental problem. And you got it completely wrong.

Your first sentence above contradicts the last one. The pension funds do not have to extract from the employees because the contract specifically states how much employees must pay in. If the state goes back to the employee to make up the shortfall, it is a breach of contract, and the employee unions will be quick to point that out.

The crux of the problem is that there is NO contract between the taxpayer, the state, and the pension fund. There is nothing preventing the state from going back to the taxpayer. In fact, because the state is obligated BY LAW to pay the pensions, there is no alternative but to use taxpayer funds to make up the difference.

Here’s an example: http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/03/31/california-teacher-pension-fund-will-need-more-cash/

California Teacher Pension Shortfall Grows

The drop in value was enough to trigger an automatic increase in the amount the state must pay into the California State Teachers’ Retirement System […]

[quote]The notion that “taxpayers” are the ones paying for everything is pure B.S.[/quote]
You say that “Employees pay a portion, employers pay a portion.” Do you understand who the employer is? Do you understand where their funds come from? Do you understand the source of the employees payroll? It all comes from ONE source.

If it’s not the taxpayer, then what is the ultimate source of these funds?

[quote]People need to understand how the system works before they spout off about it.[/quote]

Yes, they do.[/quote]

I will find the report that shows public sector workers are much better educated and more experienced than the private sector employees they’re being compared to. They also have totally different jobs. Don’t have time at the moment, but will get back to you on this.

As far as your claim that “the money comes from one source,” as stated before, money out of my pocket is money out of my pocket. I’m a taxpayer, and my money is used to fund the outrageous pay of inept executives on a regular basis. So, essentially, all money is coming from “one source” — the taxpayers. I’m not even including all the tax credits and incentives used by those in the private sector. I don’t care if the entity that it’s going to is “public” or “private,” if it’s coming out of my pocket, it is always MY money.

If I’m overpaying someone in the private sector, it is no more acceptable than if I’m overpaying someone in the public sector. IMO, the benefits I receive from those in the public sector far outweigh the benefits I generally receive from those in the private sector.

The employees’ contribution comes from the employees’ pocket. Even what the “employer” contributes is compensation for the employees work (yes, they work, and all too often, they have much more difficult and stressful jobs — that provide a greater benefit to society — than what is found in the private sector).

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]Are we comparing cubicle workers to prison guards?[/quote]
There are lots of cubicle workers that work for the state. Caltrans engineers, franchise tax board accountants, university system administrators, …

Ever been to downtown Sacramento? Lots of buildings, full of cubicles.

It would be very easy to make an apples-to-apples comparison between the majority of state worker’s jobs and those in the private sector.

[quote]The largest pension funds are obligated to pay out benefits according to contracts, but most of their funding is NOT from “taxpayers.” Employees pay a portion, employers pay a portion, but the majority comes from investment returns. If the investment returns end up being insufficient, they can always extract more from the employees.[/quote]
No, they cannot. That’s the fundamental problem. And you got it completely wrong.

Your first sentence above contradicts the last one. The pension funds do not have to extract from the employees because the contract specifically states how much employees must pay in. If the state goes back to the employee to make up the shortfall, it is a breach of contract, and the employee unions will be quick to point that out.

The crux of the problem is that there is NO contract between the taxpayer, the state, and the pension fund. There is nothing preventing the state from going back to the taxpayer. In fact, because the state is obligated BY LAW to pay the pensions, there is no alternative but to use taxpayer funds to make up the difference.

Here’s an example: http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/03/31/california-teacher-pension-fund-will-need-more-cash/

California Teacher Pension Shortfall Grows

The drop in value was enough to trigger an automatic increase in the amount the state must pay into the California State Teachers’ Retirement System […]

[quote]The notion that “taxpayers” are the ones paying for everything is pure B.S.[/quote]
You say that “Employees pay a portion, employers pay a portion.” Do you understand who the employer is? Do you understand where their funds come from? Do you understand the source of the employees payroll? It all comes from ONE source.

If it’s not the taxpayer, then what is the ultimate source of these funds?

[quote]People need to understand how the system works before they spout off about it.[/quote]

Yes, they do.[/quote]

I will find the report that shows public sector workers are much better educated and more experienced than the private sector employees they’re being compared to. They also have totally different jobs. Don’t have time at the moment, but will get back to you on this.

As far as your claim that “the money comes from one source,” as stated before, money out of my pocket is money out of my pocket. I’m a taxpayer, and my money is used to fund the outrageous pay of inept executives on a regular basis. So, essentially, all money is coming from “one source” — the taxpayers. I’m not even including all the tax credits and incentives used by those in the private sector. I don’t care if the entity that it’s going to is “public” or “private,” if it’s coming out of my pocket, it is always MY money.

If I’m overpaying someone in the private sector, it is no more acceptable than if I’m overpaying someone in the public sector. IMO, the benefits I receive from those in the public sector far outweigh the benefits I generally receive from those in the private sector.

The employees’ contribution comes from the employees’ pocket. Even what the “employer” contributes is compensation for the employees work (yes, they work, and all too often, they have much more difficult and stressful jobs — that provide a greater benefit to society — than what is found in the private sector).

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]Are we comparing cubicle workers to prison guards?[/quote]
There are lots of cubicle workers that work for the state. Caltrans engineers, franchise tax board accountants, university system administrators, …

Ever been to downtown Sacramento? Lots of buildings, full of cubicles.

It would be very easy to make an apples-to-apples comparison between the majority of state worker’s jobs and those in the private sector.

[quote]The largest pension funds are obligated to pay out benefits according to contracts, but most of their funding is NOT from “taxpayers.” Employees pay a portion, employers pay a portion, but the majority comes from investment returns. If the investment returns end up being insufficient, they can always extract more from the employees.[/quote]
No, they cannot. That’s the fundamental problem. And you got it completely wrong.

Your first sentence above contradicts the last one. The pension funds do not have to extract from the employees because the contract specifically states how much employees must pay in. If the state goes back to the employee to make up the shortfall, it is a breach of contract, and the employee unions will be quick to point that out.

The crux of the problem is that there is NO contract between the taxpayer, the state, and the pension fund. There is nothing preventing the state from going back to the taxpayer. In fact, because the state is obligated BY LAW to pay the pensions, there is no alternative but to use taxpayer funds to make up the difference.

Here’s an example: http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/03/31/california-teacher-pension-fund-will-need-more-cash/

California Teacher Pension Shortfall Grows

The drop in value was enough to trigger an automatic increase in the amount the state must pay into the California State Teachers’ Retirement System […]

[quote]The notion that “taxpayers” are the ones paying for everything is pure B.S.[/quote]
You say that “Employees pay a portion, employers pay a portion.” Do you understand who the employer is? Do you understand where their funds come from? Do you understand the source of the employees payroll? It all comes from ONE source.

If it’s not the taxpayer, then what is the ultimate source of these funds?

[quote]People need to understand how the system works before they spout off about it.[/quote]

Yes, they do.[/quote]

I will find the report that shows public sector workers are much better educated and more experienced than the private sector employees they’re being compared to. They also have totally different jobs. Don’t have time at the moment, but will get back to you on this.

As far as your claim that “the money comes from one source,” as stated before, money out of my pocket is money out of my pocket. I’m a taxpayer, and my money is used to fund the outrageous pay of inept executives on a regular basis. So, essentially, all money is coming from “one source” — the taxpayers. I’m not even including all the tax credits and incentives used by those in the private sector. I don’t care if the entity that it’s going to is “public” or “private,” if it’s coming out of my pocket, it is always MY money.

If I’m overpaying someone in the private sector, it is no more acceptable than if I’m overpaying someone in the public sector. IMO, the benefits I receive from those in the public sector far outweigh the benefits I generally receive from those in the private sector.

The employees’ contribution comes from the employees’ pocket. Even what the “employer” contributes is compensation for the employees work (yes, they work, and all too often, they have much more difficult and stressful jobs — that provide a greater benefit to society — than what is found in the private sector).

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]Are we comparing cubicle workers to prison guards?[/quote]
There are lots of cubicle workers that work for the state. Caltrans engineers, franchise tax board accountants, university system administrators, …

Ever been to downtown Sacramento? Lots of buildings, full of cubicles.

It would be very easy to make an apples-to-apples comparison between the majority of state worker’s jobs and those in the private sector.

[quote]The largest pension funds are obligated to pay out benefits according to contracts, but most of their funding is NOT from “taxpayers.” Employees pay a portion, employers pay a portion, but the majority comes from investment returns. If the investment returns end up being insufficient, they can always extract more from the employees.[/quote]
No, they cannot. That’s the fundamental problem. And you got it completely wrong.

Your first sentence above contradicts the last one. The pension funds do not have to extract from the employees because the contract specifically states how much employees must pay in. If the state goes back to the employee to make up the shortfall, it is a breach of contract, and the employee unions will be quick to point that out.

The crux of the problem is that there is NO contract between the taxpayer, the state, and the pension fund. There is nothing preventing the state from going back to the taxpayer. In fact, because the state is obligated BY LAW to pay the pensions, there is no alternative but to use taxpayer funds to make up the difference.

Here’s an example: http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/03/31/california-teacher-pension-fund-will-need-more-cash/

California Teacher Pension Shortfall Grows

The drop in value was enough to trigger an automatic increase in the amount the state must pay into the California State Teachers’ Retirement System […]

[quote]The notion that “taxpayers” are the ones paying for everything is pure B.S.[/quote]
You say that “Employees pay a portion, employers pay a portion.” Do you understand who the employer is? Do you understand where their funds come from? Do you understand the source of the employees payroll? It all comes from ONE source.

If it’s not the taxpayer, then what is the ultimate source of these funds?

[quote]People need to understand how the system works before they spout off about it.[/quote]

Yes, they do.[/quote]

I will find the report that shows public sector workers are much better educated and more experienced than the private sector employees they’re being compared to. They also have totally different jobs. Don’t have time at the moment, but will get back to you on this.

As far as your claim that “the money comes from one source,” as stated before, money out of my pocket is money out of my pocket. I’m a taxpayer, and my money is used to fund the outrageous pay of inept executives on a regular basis. So, essentially, all money is coming from “one source” — the taxpayers. I’m not even including all the tax credits and incentives used by those in the private sector. I don’t care if the entity that it’s going to is “public” or “private,” if it’s coming out of my pocket, it is always MY money.

If I’m overpaying someone in the private sector, it is no more acceptable than if I’m overpaying someone in the public sector. IMO, the benefits I receive from those in the public sector far outweigh the benefits I generally receive from those in the private sector.

The employees’ contribution comes from the employees’ pocket. Even what the “employer” contributes is compensation for the employees work (yes, they work, and all too often, they have much more difficult and stressful jobs — that provide a greater benefit to society — than what is found in the private sector).

[CA renter]

From the report:

The analysis finds that:

-Public and private workforces differ in important ways. For instance, jobs in the public sector require much more education on average than those in the private sector. Employees in state and local sectors are twice as likely as their private sector counterparts to have a college or advanced degree.

-Wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than those for private sector workers with comparable earnings determinants (e.g., education). State employees typically earn 11 percent less; local workers earn 12 percent less.

-Over the last 20 years, the earnings for state and local employees have generally declined relative to comparable private sector employees.

-The pattern of declining relative compensation remains true in most of the large states we examined, although some state-level variation exists.

-Benefits (e.g., pensions) comprise a greater share of employee compensation in the public sector.

-State and local employees have lower total compensation than their private sector counterparts. On average, total compensation is 6.8 percent lower for state employees and 7.4 percent lower for local workers, compared with comparable private sector employees.

This recession calls for equal sacrifice, but long-term patterns indicate that the average compensation of state and local employees is not excessive. Indeed, if the goal is to compensate public and private workforces in a comparable manner, then the data do not call for reductions in average state and local wages
and benefits.

http://www.slge.org/vertical/Sites/%7BA260E1DF-5AEE-459D-84C4-876EFE1E4032%7D/uploads/%7B03E820E8-F0F9-472F-98E2-F0AE1166D116%7D.PDF

[CA renter]

From the report:

The analysis finds that:

-Public and private workforces differ in important ways. For instance, jobs in the public sector require much more education on average than those in the private sector. Employees in state and local sectors are twice as likely as their private sector counterparts to have a college or advanced degree.

-Wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than those for private sector workers with comparable earnings determinants (e.g., education). State employees typically earn 11 percent less; local workers earn 12 percent less.

-Over the last 20 years, the earnings for state and local employees have generally declined relative to comparable private sector employees.

-The pattern of declining relative compensation remains true in most of the large states we examined, although some state-level variation exists.

-Benefits (e.g., pensions) comprise a greater share of employee compensation in the public sector.

-State and local employees have lower total compensation than their private sector counterparts. On average, total compensation is 6.8 percent lower for state employees and 7.4 percent lower for local workers, compared with comparable private sector employees.

This recession calls for equal sacrifice, but long-term patterns indicate that the average compensation of state and local employees is not excessive. Indeed, if the goal is to compensate public and private workforces in a comparable manner, then the data do not call for reductions in average state and local wages
and benefits.

http://www.slge.org/vertical/Sites/%7BA260E1DF-5AEE-459D-84C4-876EFE1E4032%7D/uploads/%7B03E820E8-F0F9-472F-98E2-F0AE1166D116%7D.PDF

[CA renter]

From the report:

The analysis finds that:

-Public and private workforces differ in important ways. For instance, jobs in the public sector require much more education on average than those in the private sector. Employees in state and local sectors are twice as likely as their private sector counterparts to have a college or advanced degree.

-Wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than those for private sector workers with comparable earnings determinants (e.g., education). State employees typically earn 11 percent less; local workers earn 12 percent less.

-Over the last 20 years, the earnings for state and local employees have generally declined relative to comparable private sector employees.

-The pattern of declining relative compensation remains true in most of the large states we examined, although some state-level variation exists.

-Benefits (e.g., pensions) comprise a greater share of employee compensation in the public sector.

-State and local employees have lower total compensation than their private sector counterparts. On average, total compensation is 6.8 percent lower for state employees and 7.4 percent lower for local workers, compared with comparable private sector employees.

This recession calls for equal sacrifice, but long-term patterns indicate that the average compensation of state and local employees is not excessive. Indeed, if the goal is to compensate public and private workforces in a comparable manner, then the data do not call for reductions in average state and local wages
and benefits.

http://www.slge.org/vertical/Sites/%7BA260E1DF-5AEE-459D-84C4-876EFE1E4032%7D/uploads/%7B03E820E8-F0F9-472F-98E2-F0AE1166D116%7D.PDF

[CA renter]

From the report:

The analysis finds that:

-Public and private workforces differ in important ways. For instance, jobs in the public sector require much more education on average than those in the private sector. Employees in state and local sectors are twice as likely as their private sector counterparts to have a college or advanced degree.

-Wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than those for private sector workers with comparable earnings determinants (e.g., education). State employees typically earn 11 percent less; local workers earn 12 percent less.

-Over the last 20 years, the earnings for state and local employees have generally declined relative to comparable private sector employees.

-The pattern of declining relative compensation remains true in most of the large states we examined, although some state-level variation exists.

-Benefits (e.g., pensions) comprise a greater share of employee compensation in the public sector.

-State and local employees have lower total compensation than their private sector counterparts. On average, total compensation is 6.8 percent lower for state employees and 7.4 percent lower for local workers, compared with comparable private sector employees.

This recession calls for equal sacrifice, but long-term patterns indicate that the average compensation of state and local employees is not excessive. Indeed, if the goal is to compensate public and private workforces in a comparable manner, then the data do not call for reductions in average state and local wages
and benefits.

http://www.slge.org/vertical/Sites/%7BA260E1DF-5AEE-459D-84C4-876EFE1E4032%7D/uploads/%7B03E820E8-F0F9-472F-98E2-F0AE1166D116%7D.PDF

[CA renter]

From the report:

The analysis finds that:

-Public and private workforces differ in important ways. For instance, jobs in the public sector require much more education on average than those in the private sector. Employees in state and local sectors are twice as likely as their private sector counterparts to have a college or advanced degree.

-Wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than those for private sector workers with comparable earnings determinants (e.g., education). State employees typically earn 11 percent less; local workers earn 12 percent less.

-Over the last 20 years, the earnings for state and local employees have generally declined relative to comparable private sector employees.

-The pattern of declining relative compensation remains true in most of the large states we examined, although some state-level variation exists.

-Benefits (e.g., pensions) comprise a greater share of employee compensation in the public sector.

-State and local employees have lower total compensation than their private sector counterparts. On average, total compensation is 6.8 percent lower for state employees and 7.4 percent lower for local workers, compared with comparable private sector employees.

This recession calls for equal sacrifice, but long-term patterns indicate that the average compensation of state and local employees is not excessive. Indeed, if the goal is to compensate public and private workforces in a comparable manner, then the data do not call for reductions in average state and local wages
and benefits.

http://www.slge.org/vertical/Sites/%7BA260E1DF-5AEE-459D-84C4-876EFE1E4032%7D/uploads/%7B03E820E8-F0F9-472F-98E2-F0AE1166D116%7D.PDF

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=pri_dk]The public pension employees will get the full benefit, as required by law. Whose money will be used to make up the difference? (Hint: It’s not the sh!tcanned fund manager, who was probably chosen by a public employee in the first place.)

Now if someone in the private sector loses money in their 401K because their money was mismanaged, who is on the hook to make up the shortfall?

Keep trying, maybe you’ll get it eventually…[/quote]

Actually, pension fund managers are chosen by retirement boards, which are comprised by law of one active public safety employee, one active non-safety employee, two retired employees, two local business owners or local CEOs (or one of each) and one elected official (usually a county supervisor). There has to be a quorum and majority vote on any decision.

pri_dk, try not to come off sounding like a dk unless you know what you’re talking about ;=][/quote]

Nice job, BG.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=pri_dk]The public pension employees will get the full benefit, as required by law. Whose money will be used to make up the difference? (Hint: It’s not the sh!tcanned fund manager, who was probably chosen by a public employee in the first place.)

Now if someone in the private sector loses money in their 401K because their money was mismanaged, who is on the hook to make up the shortfall?

Keep trying, maybe you’ll get it eventually…[/quote]

Actually, pension fund managers are chosen by retirement boards, which are comprised by law of one active public safety employee, one active non-safety employee, two retired employees, two local business owners or local CEOs (or one of each) and one elected official (usually a county supervisor). There has to be a quorum and majority vote on any decision.

pri_dk, try not to come off sounding like a dk unless you know what you’re talking about ;=][/quote]

Nice job, BG.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=pri_dk]The public pension employees will get the full benefit, as required by law. Whose money will be used to make up the difference? (Hint: It’s not the sh!tcanned fund manager, who was probably chosen by a public employee in the first place.)

Now if someone in the private sector loses money in their 401K because their money was mismanaged, who is on the hook to make up the shortfall?

Keep trying, maybe you’ll get it eventually…[/quote]

Actually, pension fund managers are chosen by retirement boards, which are comprised by law of one active public safety employee, one active non-safety employee, two retired employees, two local business owners or local CEOs (or one of each) and one elected official (usually a county supervisor). There has to be a quorum and majority vote on any decision.

pri_dk, try not to come off sounding like a dk unless you know what you’re talking about ;=][/quote]

Nice job, BG.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=pri_dk]The public pension employees will get the full benefit, as required by law. Whose money will be used to make up the difference? (Hint: It’s not the sh!tcanned fund manager, who was probably chosen by a public employee in the first place.)

Now if someone in the private sector loses money in their 401K because their money was mismanaged, who is on the hook to make up the shortfall?

Keep trying, maybe you’ll get it eventually…[/quote]

Actually, pension fund managers are chosen by retirement boards, which are comprised by law of one active public safety employee, one active non-safety employee, two retired employees, two local business owners or local CEOs (or one of each) and one elected official (usually a county supervisor). There has to be a quorum and majority vote on any decision.

pri_dk, try not to come off sounding like a dk unless you know what you’re talking about ;=][/quote]

Nice job, BG.

[Author]

Posts